No to IFC, Yes to Dialogue
IFC is not meant for Interfaith Dialogue
ABIM views with grave concern the call made by the Opposition Leader Mr.
Lim Kit Siang at the Parliament on Tuesday urging the government to set up
an Interfaith Council. Although the majority of Muslims objected to the
earlier proposal to form an Interfaith Commission, a fact that is well
known to Mr. Lim himself, he argued that sensitive inter-religious issues
will be resolved with the formation of such a council. His view on this
matter implies that the IFC is the only means to promote inter-faith
dialogue and that the Muslims’ objection to its formation lacks valid
justification
Our objection to the formation of such a body, as well as the reasons
why we objected, was well documented. However, constant calls made by the
non-Muslim politicians and religious leaders for the formation of such a
body on the ground that it will promote inter-religious harmony through
dialogue and protect the constitutional rights of the non-Muslims only
serve to cast Muslim organizations opposing to such a move in bad light.
We therefore reiterate our objections on the following grounds:
IFC is not a mechanism for Interfaith Dialogue. It is meant to be an
institution that promotes a one sided view about religious freedom, which
its proponents claimed to be based on “prescribed international
normsâ€, without rooms for disagreements.
IFC started on a wrong footing. Our representatives who sat on the
multi-faith committee which was set up to discuss the formation of an
inter-religious council in early 2001 was appalled by the incessant calls
by the proponents of the IFC, most of them were members of the Human
Rights Committee of the Bar Council, for a review of the constitutional
provisions which restrain a Muslim from converting to other religions.
Being insensitive to the reservations from the representatives of Muslim
organizations, they presented cases on the application for apostasy,
which they lost, and urged others to support their call. This confirmed
our view that they were not there to hold dialogues but to promote and
impose upon others their own view about freedom of religion, especially
the right of a Muslim to apostatize.
IFC is set to interfere with matters internal to one’s religion. It
is a seemingly “inter-faith†body with a strong urge to criticize,
condemn and make unsolicited recommendations on intra-faith issues beyond
juristic competence of its members. This is glaringly evident by the
actions of its proponents, including the non-Muslims, who continuously
condemned basic tenets of Islam for which they have no competence to do
so. Allowing such condemnation to take root in an “inter-faith†body
will only do more harm than good in our efforts to promote religious
harmony.
There had been deliberate attempts by the proponents of the IFC to
selectively put forth constitutional provisions which seem to be
supportive of their view about the unbridled freedom of religion and
discard others which are not in their favor in order to substantiate
their arguments. And yet, they claimed to uphold the Federal
Constitution. In the National Conference Toward the Formation of the
Interfaith Commission of Malaysia organized by the Bar Council and a host
of other organizations in February 2005, there were heated arguments on
why Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitution, which limits the
propagation of religious beliefs among those professing the religion of
Islam, was not mentioned at all in the draft Bill for the proposed
Commission. Despite legitimate claims that the organizers should take
Article 11(4) into consideration in drafting the Bill, the general
atmosphere of the debate during the conference had been to condemn the
Clause 4 of Article 11 for
restraining one’s right to unbridled freedom of religion. Although the
constitutionality of the draft Bill was seriously questioned, it was
finally adopted by the Conference. Now we ask, which Constitution that
the proponents of the IFC, including Mr. Lim Kit Siang, are adamant to
uphold? To us, this is just an example of “selective
constitutionalism†adopted by the proponents of the IFC as a strategy
to promote sectional interests.
We call on Mr. Lim Kit Siang to stop making assertion that the IFC is
the only mechanism for interfaith dialogue and hold others at ransom to
accept such assertion. We also call on the Opposition Leader to take into
consideration the views of the majority of the Muslims who are against
such a proposal when making statements on the IFC and other related
issues. We really want to see that Mr. Lim and his Democratic Action
Party truly promote the interests of all Malaysians regardless of race
and religion. Reading Mr. Lim’s statement in the Parliament on Tuesday,
as well as that of his other colleagues participating in the parliamentary
debate on that day, we could not but conclude that the Opposition Leader
and his party had not made much progress in this regard.
We believe that meaningful interfaith dialogue could only be held when
all parties to the dialogue have sincere intention to promote
understanding and harmony among different religious communities. It
should not be an avenue for imposition of one’s view over the others or
an opportunity to demonize other religions.
KHAIRUL ARIFIN MOHD MUNIR
Secretary General
Muslim Youth Movement of Malaysia (ABIM)
----------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail has been sent via JARING webmail at http://www.jaring.my
No comments:
Post a Comment